Feminists Are Afraid Of Evolutionary Psychology, And With Good Reason

Amanda Marcotte, no raving beauty she (the objective rating of her looks is germane to this discussion insofar as it partly explains the motivation for why feminists hold the irrational opinions they do), has a beef with sociobiology, aka evolutionary psychology.

I read and research a lot of “evolutionary psychology”, and while they are very good at getting people to cop to anti-feminist opinions and sexist behaviors, I have not really seen many—any?—that prove their contention that these behaviors or opinions are encoded in the genes instead of learned from the environment. They simply note people are sexist and claim that it’s genetic. I sense an agenda there, because if you were putting science in front of an agenda, you would acknowledge the huge body of research supporting the idea that we learn our behaviors and beliefs from our environment.

But I’m happy [ed: no, she’s not] to read studies that prove that sexism is genetic and unchangeable instead of socialized and changeable! I just haven’t seen it in all the years I’ve been writing about this.

Feminists are scared shitless of the implications of sociobiological theory, and it’s easy to see why. The whole edifice of feminism teeters on the shaky proposition that sex differences feminists find unpalatable are amenable to change (i.e., “improvement”) via government and societal intervention. If it is found that sex differences are instead hard-wired into the brain architecture through the process of millions of years of natural and sexual selection and are resistant to social reengineering schemes, then feminism as a practical ideology is utterly discredited.

What’s a man-jawed, fuzz-faced, beady-eyed fembot to do when her raison d’être is rendered null and void? One thing we know for certain: she won’t be happy to read studies dropping a hot, steaming deuce into her brain case.

There is a level of psychological distress more disconcerting, more bowel-evacuating, than even that of coming to realize one is hitched to a hollow ideology. Ultimately, feminists are afraid of what evolutionary psychology has to reveal because feminists are afraid of attractiveness standards, and of unchangeable attractiveness standards in particular. Because, you see, in the arena of sexual marketability, it is men who are the sex with more options to improve their dating market value. Women are, for the most part, stuck with their desirability, or lack thereof, the moment they are conceived. Outside of expensive, radical cosmetic surgery the effectiveness of which is questionable at best and monstrous at worst, the average woman will not be able to make herself more beautiful and, hence, more likely to snag a high value man anytime in her life. She can only lower her mate value by, for example, getting fat, old, burdened with bastard spawn or facially disfigured.

Accepting this truth is so depressing for many women that elaborate delusions, rationalizations and nonsensical ideologies occupy large swaths of their neural pathways to misdirect and medicate their overstuffed egos.

As the gleaming Chateau on the hill once pointed out, accurate generalizations about immutable human characteristics are the holy water to feminists’ undead orthodoxy:

if you’ll notice, women are the most outraged by the idea of evolutionary psychology and unchangeable genetic fate. that physical beauty should be so unalterable and at the same time so critical to a woman’s prospects for snagging an alpha male of her own sends shivers down her spine. if true, it means they cannot do much to improve their value on the open market. no educational attainment, no carreer success, no makeup, no exercise [to a point], no hob nobbing with the right people — nothing much matters but for the face they were given when mommy’s egg was fertilized by daddy’s swimmers.

yet, this is precisely how the sexual market works. and so, as the gears of the pretty lie machine clank and sputter to dispense more of its life-affirming self-delusions, the “social conditioning” brigade strikes out at the descending shroud of hopeless darkness.

Read Marcotte’s words. Listen to her distress signals. “Learned behaviors”. “Social conditioning”. “Cultural conditioning”. These empty slogans — so pleasant on the ears of blank slatists and equalists and temperamental bolsheviks — are the lifeblood of feminist thought. To undermine the slogans is to ling chi the souls of their adherents. Marcotte frantically and blindly swings them around like a verbal sword, not to persuade or enlighten, but to keep her encircling enemies at bay. This is argument in service to self-preservation, nothing more, for the evidence she marshals in support of her worldview is slowly rotting from the inside out. As science inexorably chips away at the justifications for believing in these feminist fairy tales, the cognitive dissonance that believers must feel rattles their confidence and sends them reeling backwards into paroxysms of strawmen, illogic, sour grapes, non sequiturs and ad hominem. The stuck pig always lashes out most violently when cornered.

Feminists will answer, with all the self-contradiction that only they can expertly dispense absent the slightest hint of irony, that sociobiology is not a hard science because we can’t go back in time to observe our ancient ancestors’ mating habits, thus relegating any theory of human mating behavior to the province of “just-so stories”. Such penetrating insight!

Well, no shit. We can’t go back in time to observe apes evolving into humans, either, so according to feminist logic that must mean the theory of evolution is wrong. Scientists gather evidence for historical biological processes by analyzing what is available to them in the present environment, and then draw inferences from the data. Additional data and experimental testing will either buttress or weaken a particular hypothesis. This isn’t just-so fantasizing; it’s the scientific method.

Sadly for Marcotte and her ilk, to date the accumulated data is buttressing a genetic view of human nature and weakening fifty years of environmental supremacy belief.

The question of evolutionary psychology’s status as a hard science is not something of much relevance. All that matters is whether or not its findings make sense. And compared to competing humanities and “soft science” fields, evolutionary psychology makes a lot of sense. It, and not “cultural conditioning” theories, best explains the patterns of human behavior anyone can see in action every day if they aren’t up to their eyeballs in denial, or striving for social status points over their SWPL frenemies.

Marcotte is insisting on cultural explanations for which there is much less evidence than there is for genetic explanations. If feminists present a theory of human behavior which explains the available evidence better than evolutionary psychology, I’ll give it its due. Of course they will not do so because they and their cohorts have nothing but lies. For example, the highly popular “stereotype threat” theory held near and dear by racial egalitarians — close cousins of feminism — has recently been proven a sham.

Culture does not spring up out of the ground unseeded, like a summoned monolith. Human genetic disposition seeds the ground and creates culture, unleashing a macro feedback loop where culture and genes interact in perpetuity. Those “cultural judgments” you so recoil from are actually subconscious reinforcements of ancient biological truths.

If feminists find some smidgen of peer-bypassed evidence tucked away somewhere in a private school’s gender studies program that, for instance, Playboy has pushed men to value young, slender babes over the old, fat chicks men would otherwise prefer, then they will have to account for the unnerving fact that the culture *just happened* to influence men to favor slender babes over fat chicks, and not the opposite. Then they will find that most cultures across the globe mysteriously influence men to favor young, thin women over old fatties. The muddled and tormented bridging of all those coincidences into some kind of semi-coherent thought will belie their theories and rob them of any parsimony. Why does culture, if it is the primary influencing force of sexual behavior as feminists claim, almost always act in one direction on fundamental human dynamics such as mate choice? That is a question feminists dare not entertain.

So feminism, along with Communism, multiculturalism and egalitarianism, falls victim to the same tropes that all human nature denialists share: namely, the belief that people behave in upsetting ways because some nebulous cultural mind ray tells them to behave in upsetting ways.

The “blame the media” refrain is the reflexive blurt of the human nature denialists. It comes in many flavors: blame society, blame cultural conditioning, blame stereotyping, blame heteronormativity, blame subtextual bias… anything to avoid confronting the reality of evolved immutable human preferences for some traits over others. People are intolerant of obesity because it innately disgusts them, not because “the media” tells them to be disgusted. Media propaganda can make it more or less acceptable to publicly express that disgust, but it can’t create the disgust out of thin air.

One should not underestimate how convenient the feminist beliefs in gender equalism, social conditioning, and the malleability of human behavior is to the realization of their goals. Because without those beliefs, feminists won’t be able to get on with the program of altering the oscillation of the evil sexist cultural mind rays. Their worst fear will instead emerge to soak up the light of day: human nature is less alterable than they wish were so, and essential contours of our sexual preferences are heavily influenced by a universally shared genetic legacy. Where the genetic predilection for certain mate characteristics is not universally shared, it is racially or ethnically shared, and thus, just as immutable.

Contrary to the hopes and dreams of rainbow ejaculating egalitarian gasbags, what the science of evolutionary psychology and genetics tells us is that there are born winners and there are born losers, on the individual and on the population level, and you’ll have no choice but to sit back and get used to it. Since most feminists are ugly, accepting this truth would deliver a mortal blow to their egos.

This week, I will present three more of those evolutionary psychology studies that so vex feminists. Hopefully Marcotte will catch wind of them. The thought of her groaning under the weight of the anti-equalitarian evidence as her forehead vein throbs and her soul splinters into a million shards of impotent grrlrage fills me with sadistic joy.

Recently on my Facebook, the femcunt lawyers are coming out to attack. But the flip side is, I’ve had more and more women “friend” me because of what they read (thanks to the new Facebook timeline feature, people see their friends commenting on my posts).

I don’t think it’s sexism at all to be pro-evo-psych as a man, it’s just chauvinism. Chauvinism is the only recourse for battling feminism, and it’s not even a fight fire with fire.

In recently month, I’ve received hundreds of emails/private messages/etc from guys saying “you really piss off some women, but everything you say makes sense.”

Evo-psych is getting their dry cunts in a twist, which only means we’re right.

I’ve been delving into some conjecture/theory on why parents are to blame for their boys growing up to be…boys. Big cocks come from plenty of testosterone in youth, and testosterone comes when you win. Cortisol comes from when you lose or get beaten down.

Is it any wonder that we chauvinists are so adamant about raising our (future) sons with masculine “social conditioning”? When I have a son, he’s going to be peeping every pretty girl at the bank, grocery store and beach from a relatively young age. THAT is social conditioning, and it happens from one individual to another — direct, intimate relationships.

This “everyone is equal in society” malarky is finally dying, and it’s happening one relationship at a time.

All primates are sexist. To argue that humans are naturally egalitarian would be to argue that humans aren’t primates. Only deluded religious people make those sorts of absurd leaps in logic when it comes to human biology.

“Culture does not spring up out of the ground unseeded, like a summoned monolith. Human genetic disposition seeds the ground and creates culture, unleashing a macro feedback loop where culture and genes interact in perpetuity. Those “cultural judgments” you so recoil from are actually subconscious reinforcements of ancient biological truths.”

That quote, as tidily packed with information as any strand of DNA, spells doom for a great number of social projects. Aversion to homosexual behavior may come from a more primitive morphology than a “preference” formed in frontal lobe. Patriarchy may be the only sane way to deal with women; ever. The old red idols of tribe and kin may call more loudly than the siren song of “diversity”. Religion and superstition may arise from deeper parts of our psyche than rationalism.

Unfortunately, Armand Marcotte lives in an echo chamber. It will never penetrate her.

Homosexual behaviour has to come from a biological perspective. There are plenty of reasons for it to occur.

Read Before the Dawn and the 10,000 year explosion. They’ll tell you nothing about homosexuality actually, but they’re the best two books going on human speciation pressures. Homosexuality is more a factor of low social status.

[Heartiste: I don’t buy this There are too many gay men with high-paying jobs, good looks, wit and high social status. But I’m willing to hear the arguments for this theory. (Maybe you mean the parents of gay men are low status?)]

I for one am totally in favor of further articles of this nature as imo we need to critically analyze and dismantle feminist rhetoric piece by piece and word by word…show them for the hypocrites they truly are, and then once revealed, keep sending that message over and over again to the general public. At this task we are merely beginning…first comes discussion and awareness, then comes change.

CH writes… “Why does culture, if it is the primary influencing force of sexual behavior, almost always act in one direction on fundamental human dynamics such as mate choice? That is a question feminists dare not entertain”

No, they do. Their answer is ‘patriarchy’. Nevermind that all humans come from families. Feminists blame every problem , collectively, on ALL the fathers of this world, reflecting their poor relationship with their own fathers.

Epic post, epitomizing the Chateau brand of superlative writing coupled with the atom-precise laser logic and rapier-wit, providing the “ling chi the souls of their adherents,” the death of feminism by a thousand cuts of the scientific katana, wielded by charismatic gamesmen the world over.

Not sure if you recall or not, but I just now saw the comment you left for me on AbDada’s blog about the venison fat. Thank you very much. I told my husband about it and am very much looking forward to ground venison chili very soon. LOOOOVE hunting season.

Thanks, Stingray. I was telling AB in another comment thread on his blog that we got an elk this year & just made elk sausage & salumi. It came out pretty awesome. Enjoy. Hope your husband gets (or already has) a good deer this year.

My Dad is (as I type) returning from an Elk hunting trip with my brother. They each got an elk AND a mule deer. They will be making hot dogs (best ever), liverworst, suasage, jerky, brats and other things I am sure I haven’t even heard about yet. We get to try everything at Christmas. I. Can’t. Wait.

Hunting season here starts soon and we are both really excited about it. I am hoping to even make it out myself this year if we can find someone to watch the kids one or two mornings. Venison can’t be beat. We try to stock the freezer as much as we can every year and I am going to try my hand at some homemade jerky myself.

Heartiste,
It doesn’t apply to Maya, but sometimes a woman will avoid sex with men because she respects men way more than women, and will want to be a man. And since you want to be a man, having sex with men reminds you of your femininity, which is bad. It’s like extreme penis-envy, with no hatered for men…

[Heartiste: That’s… an interesting theory. I could see a few on-the-fence lezbos suffering from the psychosis you describe, but it doesn’t ring true with most normal women. Celibate women who don’t have issues with being women usually avoid sex with men because they
a. have repressed their desire due to some childhood trauma
b. are very ugly, and thus unable to attract any man who isn’t a complete dreg
c. genuinely hate men as a result of hardcore feminist indoctrination or from looking like a girl in (b)
d. are very religious and have made a vow to wait until marriage
e. have suffered heartbreaking rejection at the hands of men they loved and have developed an allergy to renewing intimacy with men, or
f. have very tight vaginas or poor lubrication that makes sex painful for them.

[Heartiste: We’ve seen what laws that don’t take human nature into account result in, and it isn’t pretty.]

Any particular model?

As for me, I would start with what you wrote yesterday on Alimony, and then incorporate some of the following (which you may or may not have written about earlier):

(1) Shift voting rights to property owners
(2) Completely wall up on immigration. For those who are here, require mandatory passing of English literacy, American history, and culture. Those who refuse, deport. Deport anyone who breaks laws from misdemeanors on up.
(3) Redefine rape based upon forcible penetration which must be proven via a rape kit for the person to be even arrested. Throw those laws that are based strictly on consent out of the window.
(4). Completely replace the current tax code with 10% for the lowest earners, 15% for the middle, and 20% for the highest. No exceptions or subsidies.
(5). Repeal all affirmative action laws

Making child custody and parental rights and responsibilities go to the bill paying parent. Only consider joint custody where income disparity between spouses is less than 2 – 1.

Divide marital property based upon what capital wealth each brought into the marriage and how much income each earned during the marriage. Accountants can figure out percentages of ownership using those numbers. No one should get financial compensation for cleaning a house they lived in, cooking food they ate, or caring for their own children.

~ ~ ~

Return to the practice of choosing Senators by having Governors nominate them and State Legislatures approve them. Have one power center in Washington not beholden to lobbyists but rather a voice for the States.

This would stop much stupid legislation.

~ ~ ~

I would give voting rights only to those who paid property or income taxes.

~ ~ ~

Return to traditional standards of US law for family court.

Return to traditional standards of law and evidence for all Male – Female interaction laws. He said – she said = no case without actual evidence.

Return to the practice of choosing Senators by having Governors nominate them and State Legislatures approve them. Have one power center in Washington not beholden to lobbyists but rather a voice for the States.

How is that going to prevent lobbyists from influencing the Senate?

[Heartiste: A return to state legislatures appointing Senators, as the Founders intended, is a return to decentralization, which helps reduce corruption; state legislators are more beholden to the voice of their constituents than are 100 Senators in DC.]

Want to change society? Force women to rely on men rather than the State for provision and protection.

Every time the welfare state is downsized men regain power in society.

[Heartiste: True, but remember the welfare state is not the only player in the game. As women have entered and dominated the workforce, they have had less need to rely on men for provision. This social change has done as much to gut marriage as anything else.]

While I’m sympathetic to the goals of (2), the particular method would be a hugely expensive project that special interests could easily divert into persecution of anyone they don’t like. A slower, but more practical approach would be something like:

1) Make English the official language of the US, required for all legal documents, government forms, official business, etc. End the practice of providing translators, multi-lingual forms, and so on.

4) Require proof of citizenship before receiving welfare payments, food stamps or any other sort of government largesse. (Personally I’d do away with the handouts entirely, but that would be a much harder sell.)

While not perfect, these changes would reduce the flood of immigrants to a manageable level while encouraging them to actually assimilate.

Contrary to the hopes and dreams of rainbow ejaculating egalitarian gasbags, what the science of evolutionary psychology and genetics tells us is that there are born winners and there are born losers, on the individual and on the population level, and you’ll have no choice but to sit back and get used to it. Since most feminists are ugly, accepting this truth would deliver a mortal blow to their egos.

Sure, but don’t forget that there are people who break through the molds. Obviously for the men who go from beta to alpha but also for women who by the stroke of luck or actual intelligence know how to improve themselves.

[Heartiste: Men, fortunately for them, have more options to actively and passively increase (or decrease) their SMV than do women. This is something built into the gender code by our innate biologies.
As for mold-breakers, sure, they exist, just like there will always exist notable (and happily referenced by the losers) exceptions to any rule.]

[Heartiste: Men, fortunately for them, have more options to actively and passively increase (or decrease) their SMV than do women. This is something built into the gender code by our innate biologies.
As for mold-breakers, sure, they exist, just like there will always exist notable (and happily referenced by the losers) exceptions to any rule.]

My aunt always used to tell me “People who say that beauty is on the inside are usually ugly people.”

As for your comment, there are far more losers than winners and thus breaking the mold is extremely rare in reality.

So the best bet for society, and I would say that one major function of it, is how to manage the losers.

your comment brings to mind the political philosopher john rawls(?). he asked what kind of society a random person would structure if he had the choice. the most just one would be the one he’d build if he didn’t know his position in it, i.e., winner or loser.

The best society is not the most “just.” Arete must be the supreme goal of society. The Ancient Greeks and Romans; the Italian city states of the High Renaissance; the England of empire; and the United States until recently are superb examples of societies that aimed to dominate utterly, advance relentlessly, and thrive without apology.

The word “justice” is one of the most debased in English. For now its default translation must be an evilly whining loser’s phrase: “social justice.”

“Justice” is a luxury for declining societies doomed by their own success.

“Justice” is one of those ideals that tastes best as an ideal, but tastes bad in practice; the fetish for “justice” has given us our current, wretched culture of whiners and victims.

“Women are, for the most part, stuck with their desirability, or lack thereof, the moment they are conceived. Outside of expensive, radical cosmetic surgery the effectiveness of which is questionable at best and monstrous at worst, the average woman will not be able to make herself more beautiful and, hence, more likely to snag a high value man anytime in her life. She can only lower her mate value by, for example, getting fat, old, burdened with bastard spawn or facially disfigured.”

Not wholly true. Women can enhance their mate values by being sweet, pleasant to be around, and submissive without venturing over the line into subservience. They can also learn to be subtly but effectively seductive. The road to enhanced SMV may be far more difficult for females, but it’s hardly impossible.

[Heartiste: You need to separate short term SMV from long term SMV, as it relates to women. Beauty is necessary but not sufficient for a woman’s long term mate value. Since beauty is mostly unchangeable, it stands that any self-improvement in those personality traits that can conceivably increase a woman’s long term mate value will be largely useless on women who don’t have the requisite up-front beauty to first capture a desired man’s attention.]

I think you’re both right. With physical beauty, there is a threshold that must be met. However I would argue that it really isn’t that difficult of a threshold. A plain jane that manages her weight most likely has something that attracts a man, whether it be nice legs/ass, nice boobs, good figure, flat stomach…there are some poor souls that just flat strike out in the genetic lottery, but not many. I think the majority of undoable girls are self-inflicted injuries.

[Heartiste: This gets at the fact that there is less attractiveness variability among women than among men. More women bunch up in the middle of the attractiveness bell curve (at least during the prime years of their fertility windows), and an EP theory would explain that this is because women are the more scarce reproductive resource, so it is to be expected that selection would favor a larger pool of women than men who meet a minimum threshold of fuckability.
Of course, the obesity epidemic is rapidly working to undermine this innate female mating market advantage.]

But once the threshold is met, I have long argued that a 7 with all of those feminine traits lurker describes can be more sexy than an 8 with a flat personality or gruff voice. But I do agree with CH in that there is no magic combination of intelligence and personality traits that can make an undoable girl doable.

[An ugly girl with a sparkling personality is still an ugly girl, and that’s the rub that burns.]

“[An ugly girl with a sparkling personality is still an ugly girl, and that’s the rub that burns.]”

7 is not ugly. If a 7 can beat an 8, that means beauty is not everything for men.

[heartiste: wow, look at that! another strawman! no one said beauty is everything for a man. but beauty is the most important trait that men value in women, far and away more important than any other consideration.
as for your example, you have to specify whether the man choosing the 7 over the 8 has free options in the sexual market. is he choosing freely, or is he settling for the 7 because she will present less of a cheating or flight risk to him than an 8 would? most men who have what it takes to attract 8s regularly and keep them locked down without much hassle will mostly stick with dating 8s.]

I agree with you for the most part, but I think you go overboard with some points. For example the media definitely does create disgust out of thin air. Look at almost any of the disgust triggers that come from the PC culture. Wearing fur, having more than 2 kids, driving SUVs, every single thing that outrages feminists etc. The disgust felt in all these cases is a completely learned behavior.

[Heartiste: Most people are not viscerally disgusted by fur. The high empathetics who have a true natural disgust for fur and fur-wearers are the sorts of people who would have been disgusted without any cultural influence. After all, the high culture didn’t turn against fur on its own; there had to be pioneers with an innate disgust to propel it out of the starting gate.
Which brings up an important point: culture can’t *create* powerful emotional feelings out of thin air, but it can, via feedback loops, dampen or accentuate those feelings.
As for having more than 2 kids, I honestly don’t see much “disgust” of that. I do see tut-tutting, which is really just the sneer of status whores glomming onto a convenient pet cause to boost their standing with their in-group.
SUVs inspire hatred in some people because they are objectively hateful. If you drive a car, nothing is more annoying than having your view obstructed by a behemoth rambling on the road ahead of you. Is this hatred of SUVs “learned” behavior? Well, of course, but it’s behavior based in an entirely unlearned artifact of material reality. And the hatred itself is not a learned emotion; we all have hate modules in our brains that are activated by certain external stimuli.]

And the criticism of EP on the basis of saying that it could be wrong because behavioral trends can be caused by environment instead of genetic make up is a perfectly logical criticism.

[Anything “could” be right or wrong, but the evidence is what matters; and feminists are wrong to believe that the weight of the evidence supports environmental first causes more than biological first causes.]

There are plenty of models where “scientists” have looked at the present state, and then worked backwards from there to get laughably wrong results.

[The same could be said of any scientific field, yet this fact does not discredit those other disciplines.]

Just look at global warming/cooling/warming er climate change.

[GW science is fairly new, even in comparison to a relatively young field like EP, so I would expect more mistakes from GW researchers. It should also be noted that AGW is a field laden with PC political baggage that could influence its practitioners, unlike EP which has the opposite problem: it is a field which full expression is stymied by PC thought police.]

The computer models used are calibrated with data from the present and the past, but they have about zero predictive value.

[Weather and climate are notoriously difficult to predict. Nonetheless, a weather prediction today will be more accurate than a weather prediction from 50 years ago. From what I have read, AGW is neither as catastrophic as its proponents claim nor as insignificant as the denialists say. There is definitely a systemic political/ideological bias which pervades AGW research, and this likely slants some of the results, but enough evidence has been gathered that points to some human-induced warming that the denialist stand seems untenable at the moment.
Personally, I believe that humans have caused some warming, but not as much as the AGW community of activists claims, and that sun spot cycles and cosmic rays have been underplayed or under-researched as a potential mechanism in climate change.]

The problem with their criticism is that EP is predictive. As new tribes and cultures are found and studied, they all tend to validate EP which they would not if the behavior was purely learned.

[In almost every question that involves human behavior, and especially human sexual behavior, the genetic or biological explanation is more parsimonious than the cultural explanation.
Or: I didn’t spring my first rock hard teenage boner for the brunette with the perfectly round ass because the media told me to.]

“[The same could be said of any scientific field, yet this fact does not discredit those other disciplines.]”

I think that you would be hard pressed to find such glaring examples from physics and chemistry.

[Heartiste: How many times was the theory of the origin of the universe revised? Anyhow, no one’s claiming EP is as hard a science as physics; only that EP, as a supposed soft science, better explains human mating behavior than any cultural conditioning explanation.]

The sciences that are furthered in labs with repeatable test results in controlled environments have a much higher degree of accuracy, and even in the cases where they are wrong are still highly predictive, such as Newton’s laws of motion (which were all completely incorrect). Biologists, psychologist, and other scientists regularly try and piggy back on the credibility of physicists and chemists, but the truth is that their methods and therefore their reliability is fundamentally worse.

And I still think that there is completely manufactured disgust. Another example would be a black man who votes republican. Many people are disgusted by them but obviously that is purely cultural.

[People are disgusted by black men who vote republican? I’ve never heard of that, unless you mean by people other blacks who vote democrat. Anyhow, visceral disgust is not the term I would use to describe their feelings. It’s not the same feeling that one gets when, for instance, pontificating a steaming turd on the ground.]

“The sciences that are furthered in labs with repeatable test results in controlled environments have a much higher degree of accuracy, and even in the cases where they are wrong are still highly predictive, such as Newton’s laws of motion (which were all completely incorrect). Biologists, psychologist, and other scientists regularly try and piggy back on the credibility of physicists and chemists, but the truth is that their methods and therefore their reliability is fundamentally worse.”

Better to keep thy mouth shut, and keep us guessing, rather than spew such drivel and cement your position as a fool. Newton’s laws of motion are the most accurate model of right body mechanics in non-inertial reference frames. Your ignorance of this fact demonstrates your complete lack of scientific understanding, from methodology to principles.

Science is an iterative process with ever increasing accuracy obtained by constantly refined models. Newton’s laws defined classical mechanics, and Einstein expanded its reach to describe relativistic phenomena in inertial reference frames, and later explained the emergence of gravity due the effects of mass on spacetime curvatures. Scientific knowledge is ever converging on the most accurate model of the universe, and does so through iteration. This does not mean the previous model was “wrong”, just that its explanatory power was not universal, and could not describe all phenomena with perfect accuracy.

Evolution is as much science as physics, and so are its sub fields, including evolutionary psychology. Naive spectators of science believe that all possible ramifications of a scientific theory must be proven in a laboratory, and use this misplaced faith to berate scientists. This is best exemplified by creationists who proclaim with their characteristic ignorance: “Evolution is not an empirical theory, for you cannot show a monkey evolve into a human in a lab!” Unfortunately, this demonstrates their feeble mindedness with far more alacrity than anything else.

Evolutionary psychology is a hard science, and was one of the foundations of Darwin’s hypothesis in his magnum opus. Evolution is a theory which explains how non-replicating molecules may becoming replicating through stochastic processes while interacting with their environments. This then leads to economic optimization via market forces and results in ever increasing replicator complexity due to competitive pressure. Competitive pressure leads to opportunity costs and game theory, as the cumulative decisions of each replicator have profound effects on its survival rate. This is the basis of evolutionary psychology, which applies this framework to human behaviour.

If you require more depth, the sanctum of science is but a google search away.

One area I agree with the blind “truth” bending feminist idioettes is my resentment for the immutability of nature and instinct.

I resent that I am slave to my biology, to my instincts. I didn’t choose life or the eons of evolution that dictate the imperatives that shape every living moment of my life. I hate that I can’t just “reject” my natural drives that draws me to young, vital natural and healthy females. These are unfortunately pretty scarce and costly in our decadent modern society.

If only I could convince myself that “only what’s inside that counts,” then I could brainwash myself into getting turned on by one of the all too many bovine princesses grazing all around Yank-land.

Unfortunately even the “only what’s inside that counts,” school of thought still disqualifies most of these, since they are such unpleasant, spoiled, self-centred, argumentative harpies. Don’t accuse me of having a double standard and expecting a woman to serve at my pleasure as a submissive little wife. I’m a reasonable and agreeable fellow, I just expect the same from a lady. I would never wish to put any woman I love through all the feisty, bitchy misery that our western civilisation seems to cheer; “You go girl!”

If I could really reject all those natural instincts, I might be able to find attraction in a decrepit old granny, a man, a corpse, a tree, a rock or even a ten year old little boy!

The blind idealogues are the real sick ones. Reject our nature; then we become monsters.

Hell, even any sex drive at all is irrelevant from the individual perspective. If the line, the race or the species survives or perishes is hardly something one can appreciate from the limited perspective of a very brief human life.

“So feminism, along with Communism, multiculturalism and egalitarianism, falls victim to the same tropes that all human nature denialists share: namely, the belief that people behave in upsetting ways because some nebulous cultural mind ray tells them to behave in upsetting ways.”

This paragraph is gold. It will save time I would expend caring about politics. This paragraph is now my definitive political point of view. Thank you!

The inverse rule is: The less attractive, the older, and the fatter you are the more you need the sky-hook which is the affirmative action of Feminism – or a younger man (who you may purchase) to tell you like that wall-mirror in Snow White that truly, you are the fairest of them all (but we know otherwise ;)).

[Heartiste: Unfortunately for the cougar pride, the idea of enjoying the loving ministrations of younger men well into their dotage is just that: more an idea than the reality that most younger men find older women sexually convenient at best and repulsive at worst.]

[Heartiste: Unfortunately for the cougar pride, the idea of enjoying the loving ministrations of younger men well into their dotage is just that: more an idea than the reality that most younger men find older women sexually convenient at best and repulsive at worst.]

Overall, cougars are extremely rare for two simple reasons. (1) Women don’t look good when they get old and (2) Younger guys tend to be more beta in mannerisms and thus less attractive than the older guys.

Older women seem to come up with the cougar concept to shame older guys into dating them. “SEE!!! Look what you are missing!!!”

And the older guy will respond “Whaaa? Samantha, why is your mother around when you give me blow jobs?”

As an older guy, (61), I can report that old guys find old women unattractive too.

[Heartiste: My grandpa never leered at old women the way he did at young women. Some things never change. I think for the average old man the balm that soothes his pained inability to fuck young hotties is a nearly nonexistent libido. So perhaps for them the appreciation of young female beauty is more aesthetic than desirous. ]

Guys are guys and they are attracted to youth, health, and beauty at all ages. You don’t see Hef dating women his age,

[Hef and others like him are proof that old men with options will almost always choose younger (much younger, usually) women over “age appropriate” women.]

[i]I think for the average old man the balm that soothes his pained inability to fuck young hotties is a nearly nonexistent libido. So perhaps for them the appreciation of young female beauty is more aesthetic than desirous.[/i]

In my case, the libido is just fine, it is the available outlets that is the problem. Older guys who are not fat, do not smoke, and are in reasonable health can get it up. i suspect that most healthy Viagra users would do just fine without it if they traded their wives in for a newer model.

Few women my age are attractive, plus they were the vanguard of Radical Feminism and for the most part are a giant pain in the ass to deal with, even the few that did not morph into a short haired land-whale.

Feminism is just another front where arrogant leftists exalt pseudo-science where it has no business, just like in economic Modeling on Wall Street, using it to transfer trillions of dollars into their own pockets, while exiling truer sciences like evolutionary biology. :)

zlzozozzlzlozlzlz

As Ludwig von Mises said in The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science

The study of economics has been again and again led astray by the vain idea that economics must proceed according to the pattern of other sciences. The mischief done by such misconstructions cannot be avoided by admonishing the economist to stop casting longing glances upon other fields of knowledge or even to ignore them entirely. Ignorance, whatever subject it may concern, is in no case a quality that could be useful in the search for truth. What is needed to prevent a scholar from garbling economic studies by resorting to the methods of mathematics, physics, biology, history or jurisprudence is not slighting and neglecting these sciences, but, on the contrary, trying to comprehend and to master them. He who wants to achieve anything in praxeology must be conversant with mathematics, physics, biology, history, and jurisprudence, lest he confuse the tasks and the methods of the theory of human action with the tasks and the methods of any of these other branches of knowledge. What was wrong with the various Historical Schools of economics was first of all that their adepts were merely dilettantes in the field of history. No competent mathematician can fail to see through the fundamental fallacies of all varieties of what is called mathematical economics and especially of econometrics. No biologist was ever fooled by the rather amateurish organicism of such authors as Paul de Lilienfeld.

When I once expressed this opinion in a lecture, a young man in the audience objected. “You are asking too much of an economist,” he observed; “nobody can force me to employ my time in studying all these sciences.” My answer was: “Nobody asks or forces you to become an economist.”

Back in the late 80’s, I shared a flight from Boston to SFO with a young lady who was attending Harvard as an undergraduate. Her father was a professor of psychology at UC Berkeley. After I accurately declared that her folks drove a green Volvo station wagon, it came out that she was enrolled in a class taught by the great E.O. Wilson, author of the definitive book “Sociobiology.”
I told her I had read his book and admired his synthesis. She came back with that she and her feminist cohorts had shouted down the good Professor Wilson in class when he brought up the topics of this post.
I made a point of asking for her number hinting that I’d like to pick her up in my Porsche and take her to lunch. She eagerly shared her number but I made a point of NOT calling her. No need to pork some chick with such a messed up head. Besides, her tits weren’t big enough to suit me.

Is gender itself biological or behavioral? This is an issue that dogs Feminism to this day. If gender is primarily a learned behavior then the issue of being oppressed by design is valid, but homosexuality being genetic in origin is invalid (or certainly less valid). But then women’s biology, and the degree to which their innate hormonal differences play (estrogen, oxytocin) and the behavior manifested due to them, in molding their gender must also be taken into consideration.

The problem with denying the validity of evo-psych in terms of genetic determinism is that it invalidates the notion that homosexuals are ‘born that way’, and rather conditioned to be that way. I wonder how Marcotte would respond to that?

I have not really seen many—any?—that prove their contention that these behaviors or opinions are encoded in the genes instead of learned from the environment.

Homosexuality is scientifically unresolved although there have been advances in understanding it.
It is genetically inherited to some degree, via the mother’s family, so that if a material uncle is gay, the son’s chances go up. It is also correlated with birth order, younger sons have a higher chance than first borns.
Some studies show that males who indulge in homosexual activity have a similar number of progeny as straights implying that the genetic component is in evolutionary equilibrium. This can change with circumstances. However, the observed rate seems consistent across across cultures.
Female homosexuality is more fluid, since it can be an advantage for harem living. 65% of women report g-on-g fantasies.
So the range goes from “knew it from my first waking thought” types to one time experiments. It appears that there is genetic predisposition and a cultural expression component.
A great book that touches on this topic and many other sexual topics is “Sperm Wars.”

Younger sons are likely less alpha and more subordinate than older ones. If a guy is subordinate enough, desirable women won’t have sex with him. If he values the ascetic, he can’t fuck obese chicks, leaving effeminate guys as a substitute, and hence the homosexual activity. Environment plays a major role.

There are basically three types of lesbians:

1. butches, that can only get omega males and would rather show off a hot chick than stoop to omega

2. hot chicks that Derek Jeter has cast aside and won’t give an omega or a beta the satisfaction, though they can and often will enjoy being straight for pay or fuck their best friend’s boyfriend in a threesome or otherwise;

[Heartiste: Re: the gay thing. There can be a biological explanation for seemingly inexplicable human behaviors that violate the rules of natural selection that neither relies on a genetic component nor a cultural factor. For instance, hormones in the womb or a virus that causes gayness would circumvent the need for a hereditary cause AND a cultural cause.]

[Heartiste: Re: the gay thing. There can be a biological explanation for seemingly inexplicable human behaviors that violate the rules of natural selection that neither relies on a genetic component nor a cultural factor. For instance, hormones in the womb or a virus that causes gayness would circumvent the need for a hereditary cause AND a cultural cause.]

True, but I like the latest evolutionary explanation. The first link that I gave just hinted at it:

It seems that homosexuality doesn’t violate the rules of natural selection. It just is more beneficial for the mother’s reproductive success. It’s an arbitrage, male homosexuality is beneficial to female fecundity.

Basically, the gene of homosexuality is more beneficial to the mother because it makes her more horny and more turned on by the male physique.
She is likely to pass that gene to her sons, who may become gay, and to her daughters, who may become horny as fuck.

That’s why horny chicks with gay brothers are risky for those who don’t want a gay son.

[Heartiste: That’s an interesting theory. It makes some intuitive sense that a gene(s) that makes men attracted to other men would make women hyperattracted to men. It would be confirming evidence if the horny women of gay brothers placed a higher priority on men’s looks than normal libido women do.]

i don’t believe in this gay gene theory. i believe that there could be genes or hormones inside or outside the womb affecting sexual preferences a little but i doubt that gay people are fundamentally different from straight ppl. i know that almost no one believes in this theory (everyone says that gay people were “born that way” although there is no convincing proof for that) but from my experience i believe that sexual orientation is chosen (subconsciously) and that everyone can feel some same sex attraction from time to time. this is now very easy for girls to admit but guys never do. they are either 100% gay or 100% straight.

Damnit Maya, you unscientific troll. Do some research please, before vomiting your uninformed opinions on the forum.

There are plenty, plenty of studies that show that homosexual people have structural differences in the brain (the hippocampus, among others) that varies greatly from the heterosexual brain. It’s been shown repeatedly that these changes happen in utero. Thus they are genetically based, and likely triggered by the hormonal environment in the womb.

Somebody please stick a dick in her mouth and hands so she’ll stop writing this goofy, unscientific nonsense.

“There are plenty, plenty of studies that show that homosexual people have structural differences in the brain (the hippocampus, among others) that varies greatly from the heterosexual brain.”

Yeah, sure. I’ve probably seen some of these studies but I don’t bother to read them because they are unscientific. Like you are. Or would you like to explain us how gay hippocampus differs from straight hippocampus?

[Heartiste: You do realize that neuroscientists have identified structural differences between the brains of men and women? So given this, it’s not much of a stretch to imagine that gay brains could be structurally different than straight brains. Jesus, woman, when you write shit like this you sound incredibly ignorant.]

heartiste,

i don’t hate gay puppies – why would you accuse me of something like that?

[It couldn’t be more obvious that you hate gay puppies if you were violating a litter of them in the anus with a broom handle.]

“Heartiste: You do realize that neuroscientists have identified structural differences between the brains of men and women? So given this, it’s not much of a stretch to imagine that gay brains could be structurally different than straight brains.”

I don’t believe in this theory that gay guys are more feminine than straight guys are

[Heartiste: There you go again with your stupid strawmen you weave out of thin air. Did I say anywhere in my comment that gay men are more feminine than straight men? No, you slimy, oily sneakypoo, I did not. I wrote very specifically that it is plausible that gay men have *structurally different* brains than straight men.]

(=I believe that their “feminine” behavior is learned) or that lesbians are more masculine in any way. In fact, many lesbians are very feminine (e.g. Portia de Rossi) and it’s hard for me to believe that these girls have man’s brain.

[Are you too suffering from exceptionitis disease? Lipstick lesbians are the exception to the lesbianic rule. Most dykes are ugly bulldogs. And what makes you so certain lesbians don’t have different brains than straight women? I mean, it’s not like the two groups pursue and enjoy the same hobbies. Seriously, manhating maya, you need to get out of the house and interact with the world. Your aspergers is crippling your ability to think… straight. heh.]

I know you will now write that most lesbians are butch but I, again, believe this is mainly cultural

[The way we look is a result of the culture we live in? Are you a tard? Rhetorical.]

and IME

[Your estimation is full-on übertard.]

it’s not even true (=most lesbian/bi girls I know are very feminine in looks and behavior).

[Stop lying. You don’t know anyone who lives outside your bedroom.]

I remember I was reading some study saying that if you treat pregnant female rats with testosterone or something like that then her female offspring will have more masculine behavioral patterns. However, I doubt this could have any significant effect on brain structure or sexual orientation.

[Nice non sequitur, mrs tard. The science is in on structural male-female brain differences, and no rats were involved. Plenty of MRI imaging data on human beings has been accumulated showing how differently men’s and women’s brains not only look, but how they respond to stimuli. You should try reading more than the laundry care tags on your stuffed animals.]

Gay men are still men (lots of casual sex they have is not very feminine, don’t you think so?) and lesbians are still women.

[Proof by assertion is no way to go through life, man-hater. PS: There’s more to the psychology of being gay and lesbian than frequency of sex. But why bother schooling you on anything? It’s clear you don’t intend to engage any discussion in good faith.]

How do you explain cultural homosexuality? You had to submit to anal intercourse from your trainer to become a Spartan Equal. It was a two year training period during which you were that man’s punk to be fucked at will.

Yes it was. It was not possible to be purely homosexual and lead a respected public life, but homosexuality was part of the aristocratic culture in most Greek societies. So was the Athenian aristocratic practice to mentor a younger boy and even lobby his parents with gifts, etc. to have the opportunity to develop his career and exploit him sexually. Not all mendid it, but it wasn’t considered scandalous to do so and was even seen as positive in the correct context. Then that boy took a wife and his homosexual life ended until and if he decided to mentor a boy when he was in the social position to do so. Plato talks of this as well. Homosexuality was episodic in nature, but it was an intrinsic part of the aristocratic culture in Ancient Greece. This is a big reason Romans considered Greeks to be effeminate.

Basically, the gene of homosexuality is more beneficial to the mother because it makes her more horny and more turned on by the male physique.
She is likely to pass that gene to her sons, who may become gay, and to her daughters, who may become horny as fuck.

Maybe, but the problem with these sorts of theories is that homosexual practice and prevalence varies a lot. For example, throughout the Arab world and in Afghanistan it is absolutely rife. If you are a married man, it seems you need a catamite or two. In ancient Greece, homosexuality was widely practiced and compulsory in Sparta. However, in Rome it was much less common.

If a solely genetic explanation was true than you wouldn’t find this variance.

I suspect the homosexuality has a societal function. In long periods of history, a few men would monopolise all the women. In some muslim countries today (e.g. Saudi) a man can have four wives. This means up to 3 out of 4 men miss out. What are they going to do? How are they going to get their rocks off? One answer is prostitutes.

In some cultures, for example Ottoman Turkey and Imperial China, they’d become eunuchs and ensure themselves political influence and power. So, that’s another answer.

A third answer might be they become violent psychopaths who because of their sexual desperation seek to rain destruction on the world (Think suicide bombers).

A fourth answer is homosexuality.

This would make sense in the west today. When huge numbers of women are rejecting supplicant betas and waiting for a their dream alpha to turn up, the spurned men may choose to engage in homosexual practice as a way of getting their rocks off.

From an EvPsych point of view, it makes sense. We might expect to see a very small number of men who have an odd gene that gives them a predilection to be on the receiving end and who service a large number of blue-balled betas. Isn’t this the pattern that emerges in prison?

Anyway, it’s a hypothesis. But it’s totally non-PC, so don’t expect anyone to do any research on it any time soon.

Actually, I see the Left and the gay lobby herding society into that choice via feminism and the denigration of heterosexual realtionships, and especially heterosexual males who expect to be leaders within their families. The long term goal of the Gay lobby is to turn our society into a bisexual one.

The biological vs. behavioral gender thing is I think based mostly on the studies by John Money who tried to prove it by raising a boy as a girl. It failed spectacularly, yet it’s increasingly becoming accepted science at least were I live (Germany) because proponents of the research conveniently leave out the fact that the subject had the gender reassignment reversed and later committed suicide. There might be a few cases where gender reassignment was successful but I think these aren’t arbitrary cases where the former gender was unambiguous – that would be cruel. So I don’t see any proof to that theory but I only glanced it cursory because I find the whole issue amusing. Ever hear someone say “female bodied person”? This is approved OWS speak…

It’s also telling that these gender theories are not based on biological or anthropological science but mostly on psychology.

Perhaps if feminists exposed themselves to more timeless art, they would come to appreciate the inherent (to a functioning member of our species) beauty and order of the dominant/submissive dynamic.

Just because women are typically submissive, doesn’t mean men are trying to make war on them and wipe them out. That’d be akin to saying that the major-key, Allegretto middle movement of the Moonlight Sonata is being “oppressed” by the two neighboring C# minor movements. No, the other movements just happen to have a dominant role, but the piece wouldn’t be nearly as attractive and rewarding in the long term without this less prominent major-key portion. Yours is the relatively submissive gender. That’s okay. Not everyone in the band should want to be lead guitarist.

I’ve given much thought to lurker’s advice on the enhacement of a woman’s attractiveness, “submissive without becoming subservient.” Maybe this will put too fine a point on it, but I believe that a certain vulnerablity, rather than submissiveness, is not only an auxillary charm for the less than Top Tier, but in fact, a requirement to achieve a universal feminine comeliness. For instance, Catherine Zeta-Jones has this vulnerable quality, but Angelina Jolie doesn’t. Marilyn Monroe had it, while Jane Russell didn’t.

Genetic determinism has been the absolutist straw-man of feminists ever since they became aware of the field. Evolutionary psychologists do not merely acknowledge the undeniable influences of the environment — many of their research programs have focused on the specifics of how people respond contingently to its features, as well as how environmental prompts influence biological responses.

It’s an indictment of the threat evo-psych poses to feminist interests that such ignorance of evo-psych would need to be mischaracterized. I challenge any feminist reading this to have a look at Martie Hasselton’s response to evo-psych critics:

Too funny. That guy Ryan from slightbit that you linked to appears to be a rational, level-headed, thorough debater of this issue. He clearly went out of his way to offer well-thought-out, reasoned arguments with Amanda (ie, he prostrated himself like an intellectual beta seeking approval), and what did Amanda do? She kicked him in the ass anyway. Let that be a lesson to liberal-minded dudes like Ryan. Don’t you dare get in the way of the Fem Train. She’ll run over her own mother with it if need be.

I love this site, but let’s get real: evopsych is the clown prince of ‘science’. None of its proclamations can be tested using the scientific method and, since we lack time machines, we can’t very well go back in time and do field work, ergo it isn’t a science in any meaningful sense of the word.

Seriously: I can’t stand Marcotte, feminists, etc., but you don’t cover yourself in glory giving credence to an array of ‘just so’ stories that can never, ever, be proven or disproven–it’s the stuff of science fiction, though that’s probably a slap in the face to that esteemed literary genre. You have plenty of ammo to gun down Marcotte’s nuttery w/o resorting to flavor of the month EP ‘theories.’

You don’t understand evolutionary psychology. It most certainly can be verified by the scientific method. I think you are reacting to how journalists report evolutionary psychology, which is a whole different animal than the field itself.

Yes indeed. And there are many ways to tease out
validation from existing data without having a time machine.
Cosmology is a science. So is evo-phych – but DO proceed
carefully. A successful retrodiction can be as compelling as
the more common prediction.

As with other theories, EVOP and Cosmology are stronger
if they can make it simple (as simple as possible, but not
TOO simple dixit Einstein). To many fiddleable variables
and you can make your theory “work” and draw the curve
through all pre-existing data points, but is useless for extrapolation.

I tried this once, coming up with the correct nth degree polynomial
to pass through n+1 points. It worked perfectly, but was utterly
useless…..

You know I don’t see eye to eye with you on the whole evo psych thing (Ionnaidas has thrown a bucket of cold water on GWAS studies in general), but I must say, this is a masterful screed against feminism, full of the colorful metaphors and righteous (or not so righteous) indignation that earned this blog its reputation as one of the better reads on the net.

Though I think that more ugly chicks should know: squats, lunges, makeup and heels can work magic.

[Heartiste: If by magic, you mean ugly chicks can raise their rank about half to one point, I’d agree. But then there’s always the morning, when she’ll be seen in all her natural, um, glory.]

In the podcast she qualifies her science background by admitting that she took one science course in college in pursuit of her English major. Bit of a red flag.

It also confirms my suspicion that most feminists are little more than English majors gone wild. They like to define their “work” using scientific terms, for example describing their flights of fancy as “theories”. But all they are doing is creating stories from mountains of words and rhetoric, with no real foundation in reality and no way to verify if what they are saying is true (gosh, isn’t that what the scientific method is for?) Some, realizing that science is the enemy, go so far as to claim that the scientific method is a white male patriarchal construct.

For further fun, the blog at the Evolutionary Journal site recently tore her a new one in response to this same podcast. They do a good job of pointing out how she misrepresents evolutionary psychology (in furtherance of her story, just like she learned to do in her creative writing classes).

If you can write posts about politics which is off the mission of this blog (getting women), why can’t you write about written and verbal game? It’s obvious reading the comment section that the average commentator is a high school grad. I want to be able to seduce women with my vast array of seldom used words. I want to be the guy who gives out a thesaurus instead of skittles.

Read. Read as much as you can. Besides reading Heartiste, read other writers whose crystalline prose jumps off the page. There are many, and they can be on just about any subject as long as it’s one you’re interested in.

Hunter S. Thompson comes to mind. The nature writer Edward Abbey, in particular “Desert Solitaire.” Vonnegut, perhaps, in his better books. Pahlaniuk. Political writer Matt Taibbi can be good. Medical writer Mark Leyner had three or four works of literary fiction before writing sucky medical books. Those early pieces were literary LSD to read; he sold out and started writing crap, so avoid his nonfiction work.

Another great habit of outstanding writers: NEVER pass up a word that you don’t know. If you run across some gem that you’ve never heard or read before, and you don’t know its precise definition–look it up. Always. That is the discipline of the literary Samurai. The Oxford English Dictionary, digital version, always remains open in its own window on my desktop. I use it many times a day.

“Women are, for the most part, stuck with their desirability, or lack thereof, the moment they are conceived. Outside of expensive, radical cosmetic surgery the effectiveness of which is questionable at best and monstrous at worst, the average woman will not be able to make herself more beautiful and, hence, more likely to snag a high value man anytime in her life.”
The world is more complex than this. For young women from middle class up they do not have to be pretty at all, just omit riding cock carousel and be a little commitment minded and this is enough to catch upper beta (aspiring alpha later in life).

Fortunately, most chicks with are doable. Amanda is even doable and with the right hair style, clothes, and make up, she could meet a nice man and be happy in an LTR if she wanted to. She’s not my dream girl either, but one could acquire a taste for her looks if other factors were available to mitigate her basic flaws. And she could also improve her looks with diet and exercise, etc. The real problem is feminists are 6s and below that demand to be considered 10s and are pissed at society for not making it so.

“I was the only kid in the class who tore into the book and criticized it… and I was the only one who go [sic] an A.”

Ugh. Aside from the glaring typo, we have to listen to her bragging about getting an A as a kid?? Ooh, la, la. And I won my elementary school’s science fair.

Also, her willingness to bend truth is so apparent in that quote… I mean, does a kid ever actually know what grade every other kid in her class received? Maybe a few other kids got A’s, but were quiet (read: classy) about it.

If women of middling looks often express their attraction to a man, it is that an indication that he is objectively attractive to all or most women, and its just the more mediocre ones that express this attraction? Or, does the quality of girl expressing interest indicate the male’s objective DMV, for example, if 6’s swoon for a guy, he is most likely a 6?

I’m curious how the evo-psycho analysis would interpret this. If the scenario were reveresed, I think that male sexual interest in a woman, regardless of the quality of the male, indicates that the women is objectively sexually attractive. Omega nerds and alphas have similar biological preferences for female beauty. But I’m not sure the same holds true for women.

According to the Gaussian distribution curve, the majority of the population fall into the average 4.5-6.5 range. These individuals, both male and female, sexually desire what they are deficient in as a means of improving the genetic fitness of their offspring, but resort to assortative mating (6’s fuck 6’s in greater frequency, resulting in what characteristics are expressed in the overall averages of the population) because there are fewer above average available attractive males in the population and these males prefer mating with their own kind. For these males in the upper eschelon, anything below them is ‘dumpster-diving’ even though these females are attractive to the average male. Modern-day contemporary woman in this group will attempt to enhance their physical beauty, through plastic surgery, hair extensions, make-up, etc. in order to fool the rarer 8’9’10 males into copulating with them. (Hypergamy in action!)
Males, on the other hand, can’t fake their height, muscularity, symmetry, talents, wealth (not debt fronting as wealth), athleticism, humor, wit, intelligence, and cock size. Just as woman can’t fake their age, modify their natural waist-to-hip ratio, change their grandparents, or any inherited diseases they are trying to conceal by their sexy walk.
I don’t share the EP view that females are the more valuable sex.
Offspring share 50-50 genetic material across all organisms.
Each one is equally valuable, but are not created equal, just an expression of what combination of genes are reproducing.
The numbers don’t allow the averages(male or female) to successfully reproduce with the higher quality mates on the right tail-end of the curve, and that is why most females in the 6 range have to settle for guys in their same group.

Alpha’s and Omega’s find the same markers of fertility and beauty attractive, whether they prefer blond, brunette, slim, curvy, blue/brown/green eyes, as long as she is not a feminist or cunt lawyer.
However, a 6 woman can sing all day, “My milkshake brings all the boys to the yard!” but they are most likely all 6 men, and if she thinks she is cool, talented, and desirable because many average men will ‘hit that’, it has nothing to do with her particular skill or charm.
Woman, the depreciating asset, really need to come to terms with their self-delusion and grandeur self-perception. They have a short shelf-life and instead of riding the cock-carousel when they are most valuable, they need to leverage that in finding, acquiring, and procuring the best man they can get and keep!

Some studies (I don’t have links) indicate that woman are happier in marriages when their husband is less attractive than themselves.

No shit! I would be miserable in a marriage when hotter, tighter, younger woman who don’t give it up for free are on my jock 24/7, while my wife brags to her friends and laughs all the way to bank yelling “I’m the Lucky One!”

“The numbers don’t allow the averages(male or female) to successfully reproduce with the higher quality mates on the right tail-end of the curve, and that is why most females in the 6 range have to settle for guys in their same group. ”

WRONG!

The numbers do not allow the average female to get a committed relationship with a higher quality mate. (The same rule applies to males). But because of the highly asymmetric biology of reproduction among humans (and most vertebrates) the number DO allow an average woman to REPRODUCE with a higher quality male (within limits), as long as she does not require a long term commitment from the male.

This asymmetry goes on steroids (NOT testosterone) when you introduce government support for single mothers.

When you have 10 high status males out of 100 individuals, 70% of those individuals are average. Maybe 1 or 2 alphas dip into this pool for quick easy access, for sex, not for commitment. There isn’t enough alpha’s to go around, let alone those who are willing to commit to the average female. Hence, the 4-5-6’s have no choice but to settle within their own class.

Who cares? The only important practical point about feminism is that they don’t try to convince you their positions are correct and you should act on them, they have a JBT put a gun to your head and make you conform. Feminism as a philosophy, like other forms of political correctness, would be nothing but a parlor game without police state power to enforce it. Breaking that power is what’s important. Individuals could then support feminism or not, as long as they don’t use force to make people conform.

Thanks Heartiste – and there is no question that older women can be delusional as to their attractiveness – confusing male desire for pussy (any pussy) with desire for them. (I remember the shock I received one morning aged 26 on seeing my 36 year old bedfellow without make-up – ditched shortly thereafter I am afraid – yikes!!!).

I, of course, regard Locke’s blank slate idea as one of his less intelligent. His advice on bringing up children – and he a bachelor – is equally bizarre. If male dominance (in all things) is merely socially conditioned, then one wonders how it was that there came to be male dominance in the first place. Throughout human history there have been as many women as there have been men; they have lived in all climates and under all conditions; they have been poets, pirates, princesses and prostitutes; in fact there is hardly anything men have done that women have not copied, yet there has never (and will never be) a great female general, philosopher, scientist, composer playwright or poet (slip-shod sybils in Germains Greer’s memorably damning expression). Their suggestion that they had been held back, – a historically blind assertion – does not, after a century or so of feminism, wash, (one only has to consider the men who have had difficult even appalling starts in life such as those incarcerated black men who invented Blues and Jazz or even someone like Michael Faraday) and if, as I say, it is socially conditioned then why do they not strike out on their own?

J. K. Rowling has sold more books than Tolstoy, though she has written only 7 and he 48. You can argue that her books aren’t very good, but she’s no Stephanie Meyer. Harry Potter is full of surprising twists and unexpected harshness. Her books sold/books written ratio is close to or above that of Shakespeare. Agatha Christie has sold numerically as many copies as has Shakespeare. Not that sales are everything, but readers are a mighty discerning audience.

However, what you say is still true in all but the very extremes of female accomplishment. I mean, there are about 7 or 8 women with patents, and they are all to do with some element of making something safer, not anything great or clever.

“Not that sales are everything, but readers are a mighty discerning audience.”

Sorry, couldn’t let this slip past. A discerning audience? Are you kidding? The reason Rowling has done so well is because her material is mass produced and promoted constantly; her sales say nothing about her standing relative to writers of true greatness. The same could be said in any artistic area, such as music: Justin Timberlake has sold millions of albums, does that mean we should start comparing him to Mozart?

Bottom line: the public consumes what they are told to consume. You really believe that mass consumption of popular entertainment necessarily reflects lasting value?

[Heartiste: Marketing makes a difference in sales simply because it causes a product to reach more eyeballs in the most positive light, but it doesn’t create value out of thin air, and this is especially true when that intrinsically perceived value is honed by millions of years of evolution. For instance, fat chicks can be marketed by pornographers all the year long but that ain’t gonna get men to start fapping to them.
Now you are right to say that Timberlake’s mass appeal does not make him a better artist than Mozart, but there your ire should be directed at the mediocre masses and not the marketers. Lots of people actually like and prefer Timberlake to Mozart. The marketers tapped into that and helped increase his exposure to more of those kinds of people.]

“The thought of her groaning under the weight of the anti-equalitarian evidence as her forehead vein throbs and her soul splinters into a million shards of impotent grrlrage fills me with sadistic joy.”

While I agree that physical beauty is important, I disagree that women have nothing to work with besides looks. If a women is cute, genuinely pleasant, could cook and clean (at least as much as you’d expect from a good roommate), and generally put in effort to make life better and more pleasant for us (me), then I think that really does go a long way. And most of that stuff can be learned. Trouble is some girls would rather live a horrible life of sadness and suffering where they imagine they are a victim than actually work at being a good companion.

“the belief that people behave in upsetting ways because some nebulous cultural mind ray tells them to behave in upsetting ways.”

PUAs who use the red pill/ blue pill analogy are making a similar sort of cultural brainwashing argument as feminist do.

[Heartiste: No one is saying culture is irrelevant. I don’t think men are brainwashed by the culture, though they can certainly be misled or, more likely, confirmed in their biases by organs of propaganda. I think it’s more accurate to say men haven’t evolved the required mental algorithms to achieve precise awareness of female attraction mechanisms, because female hypergamy exists in a natural state of flux, or relativity. So evolution has had less stable environmental influences to work with in terms of equipping men with all the tools they need to maximize their attractiveness to women.
The blue pill/red pill thing is more a literary device used to describe a formal awakening to truths that are subconsciously apprehended, rather than a scientific assessment of nature/nurture influences on men.
Remember, even many feminists, despite their bleatings to the contrary, subconsciously apprehend the importance of youth and beauty, as a not insignificant number of them go out of their way to look as good as possible. (Of course, they’ll say they’re looking good for themselves, but we here know better.]

Evolutionary psychology has a pretty simplified story about men and women.

It has tended to whitewash things like female cheating and underestimate beta behavior by men.

[I haven’t seen that at all. Maybe early EP overlooked that angle, but lately there have been lots of studies examining the connection between female ovulation and infidelity, and the female predilection for betas during non-ovulation.
Where EP has come up short, I believe, is in looking at how mating preferences differ by race. I’ll leave it up to the reader to figure out why that may be.]

It also makes claims about the lack of significant human cognitive evolution in the last 100,000 years that I don’t think holds up.

[Again, this is a failure of early EP. Unless we are using different meanings of term to describe the field, I haven’t seen too many current evo-psych authors contend that there’s been no evolution in the past 100,000 years.
It might help matters to discard the term EP and replace it with sociobiology. I’ve always been partial to that term.]

“I think it’s more accurate to say men haven’t evolved the required mental algorithms to achieve precise awareness of female attraction mechanisms, because female hypergamy exists in a natural state of flux, or relativity. ”

Can someone explain this to me, like if I was a 5 year old?

[Heartiste: Why haven’t men evolved to know exactly what women want? Or, to put it more precisely, why haven’t men evolved to BE CONSCIOUSLY AWARE of exactly what women want? Probably because women have evolved to hide their true natures from men, so that they may have the prerogative to test men for their alpha awareness of women’s real needs.]

Even though guys know about women, they’ll still bow unashamedly to the snatch… I’ve seen literal land-whales with brats get divorced and remarry within months… this is our downfall, as men… because most men are pathetic lickspittles that will accept any damn crumbs from a woman’s table.

When you get older you’ll find that girls like boys, and boys like girls. But they are very different.

Girls like the coolest boy to play Prince, and girls like to play princess. Only the smartest and prettiest girl gets to be the princess, and her ugly friends don’t matter because the prince only wants the princess. They can just follow her around and call her pretty. This is cool with most girls, because they just like to be around the prince and princess. Ugly girls don’t like it but they meet ugly boys and buy funhouse mirrors and have cybersex on eharmony and no one really cares or misses them.

Boys like to play cowboys and Indians with other boys, and build things. They’re cool if girls want to play too, as long as they don’t get in the way or cry. Boys don’t care who’s smartest or prettiest, just who’s the best. So they make up silly rules that favor skill and aggression in their games, and put time limits on things so a draw can be declared if everyone is equally awesome. The boys who are the best at competing win at surviving and have more opportunities to pass on their genes. Boys don’t really give a fuck about anything but having fun and not dying, they’re down for whatever comes up.

Sometimes the girl that gets to be princess invites a boy to play House, and he’s cool with that because she smells good and makes him turgid. But the princess can kick the boy out of the house if he doesn’t make the game interesting enough. The boy doesn’t know why the princess isn’t happy, because he was having fun. He thought it was totally awesome to give her piggy back rides to prove his strength and tell her funny jokes, because she laughed and that proved she liked his company. But whatevs, the princess has lots of friends who are less choosy.

A boy none of the other boys like eventually gets the princess, he always talks shit and doesn’t think anyone is his equal, and he wears affliction t-shirts, and visors, and leather wristbands, and he has a tattoo from prison(county jail); of a shamrock. The princess who is the prettiest can’t believe someone who isn’t the best would treat her the way the shamrock/affliction tee d-bag is treating her. So she doesn’t dare kick him out even if he’s totally dumb and mean, because if a less pretty girl gets the coolest boy she isn’t the princess anymore!

The best boy doesn’t always get to be prince. The prettiest girl doesn’t always get the best.

But when the boy gets older, and if he’s avoided becoming a prince to any one girl, he can date three princesses at once and they will totally polish his scepter every day and follow his royal decrees. When they stop making him happy he can replace them with younger princesses, like a boss.

The sad thing is, there has never before in the history of mankind been more a woman can do to improve the lot her genes dealt her. Simply stay decently fit, and marry young, while still a virgin. Say, at 15-16. She’ll blow her 2-3 “genetically advantaged” points higher, carousel worn, twice her age before they discover their only meaningful mission in life, sisters clean out of the water. After all, nubile virgins aren’t exactly facing stiff competition in contemporary America’s dating market.

Studying competitive evolutionary systems, it quickly becomes clear that things are the way they are, because it is the only way they could be. Path dependencies do exist, but over time, pretty much every possible permutation has been tried. And the ones still standing, are the ones who worked better than the ones that no longer are.

Furthermore, this is a universal finding, not limited to individuals’ genetic makeup, but also applicable to, amongst other things, cultures as well. The West rose to prominence due to a reasonable workload sharing between the sexes. One that favored cultural survival and expansion, better than either the “no woman leaves home without tying up her male relatives for the duration of her excursion” the Taliban is promoting, or the “every woman is but a cumbucket for whichever male spends the most time and effort on useless posturing instead of productive work” model America has devolved into.

Of course, with the golden middle once represented by Western cultures now fully evacuated, we get to pitch the Taliban model against the cumbucket model, and the Taliban is winning by a landslide. Sooner or later, you’d think the cheerleaders for the cumbucket team would realize that, and make adjustments, as well.

It remains a mystery why socioeconomic winners like the UK and the USA, which have a clearly demonstrated superiority over other systems, should be busy replacing those systems with multiculti quasi-socialist nonsense that has a demonstrated history of utter failure. But every generation is quite certain that it’s WAY smarter than all those that came before, even while it concedes that the enlightenment process it used to come to that conclusion consisted mostly of playing video games.

Do not ignore the fact that both the egalitarian/feminist/collectivist axis and the mystics of muscle deny the existence of man’s mind. “How can you be so sure you have a mind? How can you be so sure you ever made a decision, that wasn’t already made for you by chemical reactions in your glands pre-programmed two million years ago?” You mystics of muscle are equally guilty of the irrationality, evasions, and intellectual laziness you accuse the mainstream of; but admittedly, their groupthink is more dangerous than yours.

I agree that beauty is more important to a woman’s datability cred, than to a male. Yet I find the idea that personality doesn’t matter AT ALL a bit impossible.

[Heartiste: You know what the internet needs more than anything? A strawman gif!]

Is Heartiste assuming all males are shallow? Sure, looks may be important for a booty call. But even Heartiste has to admit, there are certain personality traits that a man evaluates when considering a woman with long term partnership potential.

Example.

A man is presented with two physically identical women, but he can only marry one.

One of the women is loud, obnoxious, a drunk, sleeps around, and spends her money compulsively.

The other woman is kind, considerate, and a good listener

Which woman do you think the man is going to marry?

Evolution HAS geared men to prefer certain women for long term partnership over others. After all, a man has to chose which woman would make the best mother for his young. In terms of picking motherhood material – men tend to be more attracted to compassionate, empathetic, and nice women – over the aggressive, competitive, cold women. The aggressive, me-first chick is more likely to abandon her baby on a cliff side after she gets bored of the thing.

“Evolution HAS geared men to prefer certain women for long term partnership over others. After all, a man has to chose which woman would make the best mother for his young.”

Are you a woman?

Your reasoning is totally flawed. Socially, men may choose who to marry or who to raise children with, but as far as evolution goes, nature gave us a machine gun armed with a virtually unlimited supply of sperm.

Evolutionarily, we aren’t designed to choose who to impregnate. We are designed to impregnate EVERY fertile female. If nature wanted us to be choosier, we would have gotten ovens that takes 9 months to bake a loaf of bread and only one loaf at a time.

[Heartiste: I get your point, but this is not entirely accurate. Women are choosier than men, but that doesn’t mean men exercise no choice at all. Men do choose their mates with some consideration, and the level of consideration goes up as the amount of potential resource investment rises. To use an obvious example, if a man meets two interested women in one night, and one is fat while the other is thin, he’s going to choose the thin one almost every time.
If he’s thinking about marriage, he’s going to lock down the hottest and youngest chick he can get.]

Usually you are right on target, but using bogus science (evolutionary psychology) against feminism is a dead end.

Whatever story you can make up using evolutionary “psychology”, one can make another one which can’t be refuted by the empirical evidence. It’s not science

Psychology in living humans is subjective and politicized enough (think 1973, APA, homossexuality). Now imagine making a case based on the shaky foundations of the theory of evolution.

We can’t go back in time to observe apes evolving into humans, either, so according to feminist logic that must mean the theory of evolution is wrong.

The theory of evolution isn’t wrong because no one ever saw the common ancestor from which men and apes come evolving into homo sapiens. There are many facts that are not directly observed but are infered correctly and confirmed by the evidence.

The theory of evolution is wrong because 1) the mecanism is clearly deficient (natural selection + random mutation + millions of years are insuficient), 2) there is no clear lineage, 3) it contradicts other theories better suported by the observable evidence.

When you build a case against liberal ideologies using the theory of evolution you are already giving them a head start.

Scientists gather evidence for historical biological processes by analyzing what is available to them in the present environment, and then draw inferences from the data.

Exacly. But nowhere the data suports the theory of evolution as initially proposed by Darwin, and latter on modificed to incorporate Mendellian genetics.

Science has gathered enough evidence to make the theory of evolution nothing more than victorian myths. So using the bastard child of evolution (evolutionary psychology) is, quite frankly, a dead end.

The Theory of Evolution is the foundation of all biological science and is not questioned by any serious scientist (No, Kent Hovind doesn’t count). It’s as much a fact as the Theory of Gravity.

Evolution fits the evidence far better than the theory that an invisible sky wizard made the universe 6000 years ago in 7 days, but looking like it was millions of years old, and then somehow became his own son who was also himself and sacrificed himself to appease himself so he wouldn’t have to roast us, his beloved creations, in fire for all eternity.

4. The lack of a natural mechanism by which a living system can be, gradually modified into something totally diferent. According to the scientific evidence, “like begets like”.

However, according to the religion of evolution, “like begets unlike”. In who should we believe? Our seeing eyes or victorian hypothesis about what a minority of the population thinks is the true history of nature?

“Like begets like” is a radically oversimplified notion of reproduction. Any organism that reproduces sexually does not produce exact genetic replicas of itself. There are always variations. I look like my mother. Strangers can easily tell us for family if I am somewhere with her. But I’m not genetically identical to her. There are variations. And even organisms that reproduce asexually are capable of mutations.

Common among plants, BUT they can usually reproduce both ways,
sexually (think flowers, seeds etc) and asexually through root sprouts etc.

Rare among animals, at least among those large enough to see
with the naked eye. The species that go this route tend not to last very
long (this applies to plants also, those without any sexual reproduction,
like dandelions who fake it, despite the pretty flowers). This statement
is hard to prove but heavily bolstered by the rarity of the phenomenon.

One notable exception is the bdelloid rotifer (NOT a typo). Apparently
they have been around for a geologically long time. But it also appears
that they DO have a gene-shuffling mechanism after all, involving
drying out and “dying”, When many rots do that, and water returns,
not only whole organisms but individual cells reconstitute, sometimes with
parts not originally in the same cell or organism. Voila.

So in rotifer-land a night on the town involves getting desiccated. Maybe
not much fun but it works for them.

On second thought, you can’t refute religion with science. So your point about using evolutionary psychology to attack feminism might be spot on. Just as the theory of evolution attacks your belief and you try to disprove it with bogus science so does the feminist attack EP.

You can refute religion with science. Only unscientific tards still believe in a white-bearded wizard in the sky.
Only unscientific tards still believe that jesus is not an awkward caricature of horus, and that christianity is not a plagiarism of ancient pagan retarded beliefs.

Religious morons need to shut the fuck up when intelligent people are talking about science.

My my, are we angry and trying to convince ourselves a lie is true perhaps? Does your entire sense of self esteem hinge on this need to belittle the beliefs of others? Then its not a very strong foundation for your sense of self worth, is it? Are you so insecure in your own beliefs that such tirades are needed? I spent several years of my life trying to think as you do, spewing the same kinds of angry hate in a vain effort to convince myself it must be as I was told it was. I finally realized it was futile. In short, I’ve been where you are now, and left that place long ago. I would submit your awareness of the universe is only partial and that you have much to learn. But why believe an inbred dumbfuck like me? By all means continue on this path of self destruction that you’ve chosen.

The theory of evolution, evolutionary psychology, and climate change, are just that, theoretical. It is constructed to adhere and appease the logical, rational mind, just as religion is. If there is too much disagreement, it won’t be accepted. However, before we start bashing religion, consider that both are open for interpretation. Hard science does not discredit religion, in fact, hard science proves the existance of a God or God’s. Einstein also acknowledged the existance of a higher being. Life was created, it is allowed to exist and propogate based on simple thermodynamics. I hold both B.S and M.S. in Biochemistry and Chemical Engineering. I can vouch that evolution in the sense that everyone defines it as, does not take place in nature. Evolution is not the same as adaptation. Humans did not evolve from monkeys and monkeys did not evolve from algae. Mendel and Darwin didn’t know shit about chemistry, as most biologist’s don’t know squat about biochemistry. Life is biochemistry and biochemistry explains life and it’s purpose, not religion or evo-psy. We are all here today because our ancestors had no problems getting laid. The fact we have 7 billion on this planet today means a whole lotta fucking going on, and most of them don’t know shit about theories, science, or game. Even though 5 billion of them follow some religion, that doesn’t mean they are right or in the know!

Heartiste. So you say that I’m creating a strawman of your argument; either meaning that I’m creating a false position to argue, or that I am oversimplifying things.

If I am, then enlighten me. From what I have read of your material, you seem to be saying that a woman’s looks in mating selection are either her main asset or her only asset.

What am I getting wrong?

[Heartiste: I’m not abreast (heh) of these comment threads, but I believe you were the one who wrote that this blog has claimed that a woman’s personality doesn’t matter AT ALL to her mating prospects. That “AT ALL” is the strawman you are then effortlessly knocking down.
No one of this blog ever claimed that. Proof is right at the top of the home page. The DMV test for women has a section devoted to feminine personality that will add or subtract a minor amount from a woman’s ability to keep men around whom she has initially attracted with her beauty.
Nonetheless, the main point — that women’s personality is not very important to her short term mating success but becomes more important to her long term mating success — stands.
(And by long term mating success, I mean a woman’s ability to get a man to fall in love with her and want to commit to her.)]

Excellent post. There must be some degree of irony to the fact that feminists simultaneously scream about the idea that genetics might dictate male preferences in female appearance while being fully aware of how much those same genetics limit the extent to which women can change that appearance.

To feminists: If it’s all cultural, go be hot, no matter how ugly you were when you were born. Don’t let society prevent you from changing your level of attractiveness. Funny how male genetics are infinitely malleable while female genetics are carved in stone.

A lot of what you write makes sense to me biologically. Thing is, it doesn’t explain what I see in my own surrounding (a small, affluent college town.) Thinking of the married couples I know or see walking around, I have to say that more often or not, the male is the better looking of the two.

[Heartiste: Male attractiveness is defined by much more than his looks. A good-looking man can very well be a beta who can’t get laid with hot babes because his personality turns them off.]

Obesity is much less common here than in the rest of the US, so it’s not like the women started out attractive but gained weight after marriage. They are normal weight but plainer than their husbands. I don’t understand it..

[You put too much emphasis on men’s looks. Men with options aren’t necessarily the best looking men. A bunch of country bumpkins with loser personality traits could very plausibly settle for fat cows because they feel like they have no other choice. And for many men, fucking a fattie once in a blue moon beats grinding celibacy.
Now if you were to give these men real choice in women, well… let’s just say that the mismatched couples you see wouldn’t exist in the state of nature much longer.]

Heartiste, woman and men place equal emphasis on looks, and those visual cues are extremely important to both sexes. It’s the first observation we assess, yet easy to manipulate until further inspection. Our phenotype is an expression of our genotype, whether male or female. A hard-body is attractive to the opposite sex without display of personality, wit, or humor. Both parties Peacock to increase their visual attractiveness.
The intensity of sexual desire is subconsciously motivated by the extension for which we cannot improve within ourselves individually and to genetically diversify deletrious mutations while conserving attractive traits that increase survival rates and increased mating opportunities.
You state a man will overwhelmingly prefer a thin woman over a fat woman. I agree. But will a beautiful woman overwhelmingly prefer a short, bald, fat guy who is dominant, over a rich, tall, industrious man who can behave any way he likes? Ugly people have sex, beautiful people have sex, that is why these two kinds of folks exist. Ugly people want to have sex with beautiful people, and beautiful people only want to have sex with beautiful people. That is the behavior, not a behavior that can be replicated by ugly people to get beautiful people. A good-looking guy is physically attractive, but a guy who is attractive without being physically good-looking doesn’t make sense. Is he attractive because of some external situational circumstance? If his attitude alone was enough, the guys I refer to wouldn’t exist, nor would they have the multiple mating opportunities with the woman average men lust over.

Finally I’ve had a chance to listen to the podcast. My fquestion to you, CH, is, why? Why did you choose this particular piece of crap to tear into? It’s just way too easy. Upfront, she reveals she’s an English major. She does not have any, and I repeat, any understanding of science. She started everything from her feminist biases — she revels in her ignorance. And, my god, what’s with the laugh track in the background? Tearing her apart is like stealing candy from babies.

It gets even worse. Here she is at “Skepticon”, supposedly a meeting for those who reject any and every form of dogmatic thinking, menstruating all over and misrepresenting sociobiology once again. I love it how she gets torn a new one in the comments section.
The anti-evopsych propaganda starts at about 24 min mark.

It seems a pity to me that the Skeptic movement has been hijacked by the likes of her, Rebecca Watson, Greta Christina and Ophelia Benson (what a bunch of beauty queens, heh), who use it to promote an overtly partisan and highly unscientific agenda.

“The whole edifice of feminism teeters on the shaky proposition that sex differences feminists find unpalatable are amenable to change (i.e., “improvement”) via government and societal intervention. If it is found that sex differences are instead hard-wired into the brain architecture through the process of millions of years of natural and sexual selection and are resistant to social reengineering schemes, then feminism as a practical ideology is utterly discredited.”

I think the mistake you make is believing that feminists make a good faith effort to discover the reality that is rather than rejecting it and imposing the frame of an alternate reality over what is. All forms of Marxism do this to some extent, but because feminism attracts so many fundamentally damaged people its reality-denying force is greatest. If you troll feminist blogs consistently, you’ll see the reality-denial fluoresce. A pretty good example of this is when they issue a fatwa that a psychologically disturbed man who has mutilated his genitals and embarked upon a course of hormone therapy is a “woman.”

We can’t believe that feminists are looking for anything other than ego protection in their belief systems. The reason to point out their logical fallacies is not that we expected them to think reasonably, and are trying to correct their faulty logic, it is because some weak minded men and women could get caught up in the faulty thinking.

We are trying to inoculate the uninfected population. Not to cure the rabies infected.

Yes, in general the inherently rare females eggs are more valued than any one of an on-going geyser of sperm.
But I was focused on a more painful(for MM) point: That is, for example, eggs from IVY League girl ovaries fetch a huge premium over those from State School ovaries. And well below in price are what can be harvested from high school drop-out girls.
In other words, when rich, semi-infertile couples go shopping, with their own money, for a designer gametes, they are willing to spend lots of money on Nature – as the thing that matters.

[Heartiste: “I’ve always thought that men’s (and women’s) actions are the best interpreters of their thoughts.” – John Locke]

It is simply not true in general that a woman can do but little to enhance her SMV. There are a number of things she CAN do. They will be mostly ineffective on superalphas, but they would in most cases pump and dump anyway, so there is no big loss as far as getting married or even into an LTR.
It will work well on a high level beta.

3) Modesty with makeup. Consult an expert. Good makeup should be
barely visible, with the possible exceptions of lipstick and nail polish.
More or less the same idea as 2).

4) Develop some – preferably fairly gender-neutral – interests.
You need to be able to TALK, not just hump! But don’t start off
with long and boring expositions on your interests – or of the
minutiae of your life.

5) Keep physically in shape. This includes keeping a good posture,
even when inconvenient.

6) Possibly, learn to move smoothly. It does not have to be whorish,
just smooth. Many women (and men) have an ungainly gait, which
is a turn-off. You might need to get some help with this. It could
be your brother!

7) Work on your voice. Some people have squeaky, tinny,
choppy or otherwise unpleasant voices. This can be improved
by training.

Etc.

(Note: Many of these things will be helpful to men too, adapted to the male gender, but will in general not promote a loser into an alpha.

6 is a pet peeve of mine. many otherwise hot women don’t know how to walk well. they’ll stumble around in heels (or even flats) like a gimp, move without rhythm, or walk with their upper bodies (like guys do) rather than with their hips.

once dated a girl who walked like a pregnant t-rex. i made her take ballet classes and walk around barefoot as much as possible.

a few years after we broke up, i ran into her and the change was astounding. she’d continued ballet and as a result her posture, balance and coordination are vastly improved. she moves lithely, fluidly….like a woman should.

tip for fathers trying to raise feminine daughters: make them take ballet.

LOVE the ballet training. Mercy, I love the posture. An example is S.E. Cupp, the former ballerina turned conservative pundette. I can watch that pinched face, listen to her gravelly post-femme voice and atheist blather, just to see that spine in a chair, shoulders back, chest forward, bottom delicately perched.

(In the “leg chair” on Red Eye. Not as good as a stool — without a chair-back, natural posture is accentuated. Clip doesn’t really do her justice since she has been chubbing up and nearing her final approach to The Wall. But you see my point.)

Posture, even more than straight teeth, is the key underestimated contributor to attractiveness. It even helps with the fatness, by hanging it on a sturdy frame rather than allowing the body to collapse into roly-polyness. I’m convinced a girl can achieve +2-3 points with great posture, but that may just be an expression of preference bordering on fetish.

YES. Posture, ladies, posture. Gets some books on that head while you’re sipping soup at your finishing schools. Yes.

What’s ironic is that only evangelical males have the monogamy gene that might make someone want to stay with her into old age.

Because of their interest in protecting the interests of older females first and foremost, feminists and evangelicals have more in common than they care to admit and it’s good that this election cycle won’t see the Hobson’s Choice of having to choose between one or the other.

“If it is found that sex differences are instead hard-wired into the brain architecture through the process of millions of years of natural and sexual selection and are resistant to social reengineering schemes, then feminism as a practical ideology is utterly discredited.” You mean like the way all those hundreds of tests have demonstrated with the greatest consistency that some linguistic / cultural / geographical groups have a higher average IQ than others has utterly discredited the idea we can ‘close the education gap?’

Y’all usually have a more clear understanding of the level of self-deception we are capable of.

Sigh. Apparently pseudoscience is necessary to rationalize the bizarre and unusual mating preferences of Homo Internetus PUA. Evolutionary psychology is useful when it sticks to the basics: human beings are an evolved biological species with sex differentiation. But in its utterly pseudoscientific internet form it quickly spins out into a vain attempt to prove that the Internet Alpha is the culmination of human evolution, and his (usually) brain farts are expressive of truths written inscribed directly upon the human genetic code.

Most differentials between real men and women are traceable to the basics of sexual dimorphism (women’s reproductive role and the physical strength/size differential, considerably smaller in humans than most other primates), plus culture and rational choice on the part of both sexes. There are huge cultural and status impacts on sexuality and mate choice. (This should not be a surprise to PUAs who base a huge portion of their sexuality on seeking internet status points from other men based on stories of their hypothetical conquests). If you want to read actual evolutionary psychologists on this, check out Eagly and Wood . This would in any case be a useful variant to the usual diet of David Buss papers finding that men in 47 different cultures are 4-8% more likely to prefer a 24 year old hottie to some hypothetical alternative. (Most evolutionary psychology papers are characterized by grandiose claims based on small effect sizes).

Blog banner not good to be open in a professional office environment. The old one was OK because it wasn’t that obviously erotic. Manosphere forum operators ought to keep in mind that they want to have the kind of daily readers who work at the State Department or as interns at the Supreme Court. No need to give feminist coworkers an excuse to ban reading this page.

If you want to see the diamond-hard scientific argument against those confused by “The Standard Social Science Model” (out of which feminism grows), read “The psychological Foundations of Culture” by Tooby and Cosmides. It’s a masterly explanation of what many social scientist have been mistaken about, and sets the standard to be met by any explanation of human nature.

While I agree that men are prone to prefer slender chicks over fat ones based on genetic disposition rather than cultural brainwashing (and even if it was, I wouldn’t care), there’s one thing that always bothers me. Why are so many ancient fertility statues modeled after morbidly obese women? Just look up the Venus of Willendorf, for example. Shouldn’t fertility goddesses be modeled after the women our primal male ancestors lusted after the most?

[Heartiste: Fertility worship and sexual desirability are not the same. Also, there’s a post somewhere in the archives here that highlights an anthropological discovery which found that cavemen from some 3,000+ years ago were carving masturbation dolls, and these dolls were very slender, height-weight proportionate.]

There are several factors at work here. MOST men prefer slender women, but not those who verge on anorexia. The anorexic look is driven (yes, there is SOME cultural conditioning at work) by fashion designers etc. And they are in the business of selling clothes, not directly sex. And the fashion designers are often homosexual, and either dislike women or want them to look like young boys.

But check Playboy. Most centerfolds etc. are MUCH more rounded than
the women in the ads.

The evopsych angle is a woman needs some padding to be able to nutritionally handle a pregnancy. A woman who looks like she is starving is NOT attractive.

In the other direction, there is some pull because slenderness is in many cases a proxy for youth. In pre-industria and especially pre-agricultural days, it took TIME to get obese!

AND yes, there is an issue of social status, even among women – a well connected wife is reproductively more valuable, ceteris paribus. And yes, in our current culture, obesity equals low socioeconomic status. Check out the customers at WalMart, especially the women, and compare with the women who frequent any up-scale store, from Bristol Farms to Tiffany’s..

Marcotte’s monstrum in fronte is a refutation. The sooner she confronts this harrowing fact of her existence, the better the rest of her unfortunate life will be. The ugliness of her face married to the ugliness of her philosophy has made her personal and professional lives a shambles. Worse, her philosophy disallows the possibility of her ever squarely addressing that shambles with the cold-eyed look in the mirror a deliverance would require. She inspires more pity than contempt.

You have to assume the photo provided in her profile is her “best face forward.” When Heartiste casually remarked that she wasn’t exactly a “raving beauty,” his understatement did not prepare us adequately for the shock that is her mug. It explains most of her dyspeptic existence.

I’m not a fan of bullying the homely girl in the back of the classroom. Her “thinking” requires a retort the way a wounded howl at the tragedy of misfortune requires engagement. Her writing is one extended, plaintive cri de coeur. Nobody is buying the tawdry philosophy she is peddling; she hardly buys it herself after a fresh encounter with a mirror, that unforgiving bastard.

Amanda, Amanda, baby doll, come here. Come on now, that’s it, princess, into Daddy’s arms. I love you anyway. Stop fighting so feverishly against the injustice of your circumstance. The fight is destroying you, making everything worse. I know the beautiful pearl inside that rough oyster you’ve been so unfairly burdened with. I understand, baby. It’s okay now. There there now. Shh.

The whole point of evolution is that everything is always changing and in flux. It is simply a matter of how long a time period you want to look at. It would probably be possible given enough time and effort to breed black people with the IQs of Jews, Chinese with large penises or even a race of men who find Amanda Marcotte the summa qua non of feminine beauty. It’s not clear what the evolutionary trade offs might be to create those types of people, but those goals are doable given a few thousand years or so and a captive population. If feminists recognized this they would be busy creating their own secret Bene Gesserit religious orders and getting it done.

Your posts discuss the sexual component of ev-psych but what about non-sexual instincts men have in relation women? It is generally accepted that women evolved to have a childlike appearance (fat faces, high pitched voices, etc.) so they could exploit men’s paternal instincts. I often find myself patronizing women (e.g., buying things for them, talking to them like they’re children) not because I am socially indoctrinated (a white knight) or think it is going to get me pussy but because I instinctively pity them as I would a child. I behave this way even towards women I do not find attractive. You seem to touch on this topic when you discuss how men should resist their urge to be overly nice to women but you generally seem to treat it as a character flaw rather than an inborn instinct.

So I just heard on the radio an interview with some (gay, according to this voice) guy who, in celebration of “30 years of feminist research” in some unknown university, published a research regarding why the way tampons and pads are advertised discriminates women. Some of the claims were “only women need to wear tampons, because that’s what the patriarchal society expects of them” and that the “wings” on pads enhance the stereotype that women are supposed to act like angels. It got so ridiculous I could hear the (female) interviewer’s voice cracking at some points.

You have to wonder if manufacturing traits and marketing them as viable sexually (feminist agenda of ‘sensitized’ [re: compliant] men) is a viable way to take charge of reproductive evolution. IE change the rules, change the game, eventually change the players.

With that lense, one could argue that the latter half of the 20th century, with the spread of socialized programs throughout the western world, was / has been a short term success in terms of ugly women and perma-beta men trying to change the evolutionary direction of the species.

The scary question is, given enough time and traction and medication (birth control, changing of selective traits), could that strategy permanently change the direction of the species?

Raises the stakes of the battle between feminists and chauvenists, doesn’t it?

We’re seeing an interesting battle for control of Republican Party in the US now where the perma betas on the right (male fans of the pro-right-wing-feminist types like Bush-Perry-Bachmann-Palin) are getting trounced by those who clearly want an alternative. The 4 way tie now is for at least 3 men who don’t seem like they want to be part of the continuing pro-feminist elite: Paul, Cain and Gingrich seem to hate feminists, where Ron Paul’s supporters are definitely anti-feminist and mostly male (Paul and Tancredo were the only Republicans to vote no on VAWA in 2005). Romney started to make sounds about condemning Cain for getting accused of sexual harassment but he immediately saw that this would backfire badly and reversed his position within 24 hours. So we’ve basically got a 4 way tie between men (no woman) who are aware that it is not acceptable to be pro-feminist going into the 2012 Republican nomination and general election process.

We’ll want to encourage this development and maybe feminism will be a key issue in the 2012 election. If that happens, and remember that plenty of US elections pivoted on this in the past, then we could get a US president who knows he has a specific mandate to roll back feminism.

I think that’s a pipe dream, as is Paul’s candidacy (unfortunately). There are forces at work which keep issues off the table artificially, and there are outsized issues with crowd out tertiary concerns:

Economy. Economy. Economy.

Even though the inclusion of women in the workforce (which I don’t really resent) IS a major economic balancing act, it will not be discussed. Ever. By anyone. Officially off the table till times get so bad, civil rights go down the tube.

I do think, however, the trend on the right is to move away from the artificial social agenda of the neocons, which includes the kow-towing to issues such as feminism in the quest to be socially acceptable. I dont think this amounts to an attack on feminism in the political arena.

It’s really strange to talk about “immutable human characteristics” on a blog that spends so much time rationalizing why so many people fail to display these characteristics. Hamster indeed.

The thing about evolutionary psychology – at least in popular discussions that have some kind of political edge – is that it always requires liberal doses of no-true-scotsman. A woman is uninterested in self-declared alpha males? She must be a lesbian, and so she doesn’t count. A guy disagrees with all the game theory that overlaps with MRA concerns? Obviously, he’s gamma and so he doesn’t count.

[Heartiste: Yet another nimrod who doesn’t know the difference between an exception and a rule.]

[i][Heartiste: Yet another nimrod who doesn’t know the difference between an exception and a rule.][/i]

You seem to think that the groups and people you consider exceptions hold not-insignificant political and or cultural power. On these grounds alone, the exceptions must not be a statistically insignificant number of people.

Regardless, your “rule” is first and foremost based upon explaining away the exceptions. It is impossible to do otherwise; everytime someone says “X is an immutable characteristic of humanity,” someone else points out “Group or individual Y shows no evidence of X…”

At that point, the person making the claim about human nature always says that group Y is either repressing X, or that group Y has a mental illness, or worse, that they are not fully human.

In other words, defending statements about immutable human characteristics requires a turbo charged hamster. “X is an immutable human characteristic” is, barring the list of banalities that Steven Pinker points out, is [i]never[/i] an empirically verifiable statement. It is *always* ideology.

(I’m unfamiliar with wordpress tags, so the redundant tags are an experiment)

It would seem that Vliet Tiptree holds to something of a genocentric persuasion. She is definitely not afraid of EP. How could this be, seeing as she’s a radfem and all? From what I make of her screed, it seems that she believes in a feminine essence that is beyond cultural influences, and which needs to be defended against vile masculinity, and that it is the misguidedness of the nurturist crowd that will ultimately be to blame for feminism’s demise. Go figure. Vliet Tiptree is on the side of EP. Methinks CH should go back to what he’s really good at… which is discerning the pretty lies of womanly nature.

BTW, there are some paradigms relating to complexity theory (chaos and systems theory) that are doing the rounds that account for the wiring up of the brain due to cultural influences (Gerald Edelman, Norman Doidge, Stuart Kauffman). In this context, the example of the stereotype threat being debunked is premature. This really is new territory, and wouldn’t it be the ultimate nail in feminism’s coffin if it was a men’s movement that really cranked up the volume? hahaha Fat chance of that, eh… back to the pissing contest.

Vliet Tiptree’s ideas are not scary. They’re just the delusional rants of an ugly old hag. Most women will never agree with her first sentences.

And I wish her ideas were more accepted because that way, the war would finish quickly. Never be afraid or intimidated by radfems, they can be wiped out in a blink of an eye if they go outside their limited sphere.

I’m more concerned with the insidious ideas of the equalitarian fembot crowd. They present themselves as noble humanists, but they made it easy for players to stick their cocks in every single potential future wife and mother, and forced betas to settle for slutty 30 year olds, before the unavoidable ass raping in the divorce courts.
And they forced everyone to consider this normal, under the twisted pretense that love is mysterious and ephemerial.

Fuck ’em. They did a great job, and their ideas will continue to thrive, despite our best efforts. All it takes for ending Vliet Tiptree’s madness is a bullet.

Re: Blog Banner
Hate to agree but Maya but she’s right – the text looks tacky. I think it’s just a font color issue. Not enough contrast. Changing it to a brighter red or giving it an outline/shadow/etc would probably fix it.

I remember the first book I read on evolutionary psychology long ago and was amazed at how it fit observed data. That is what SCIENCE is – coming up with a hypothesis which explains known facts, then making predictions based upon that hypothesis for testing against other observed facts.

So it’s not surprising that she would come up with something that there is no way to test on humans. As far as other animals it is well documented that much of their behavior is genetic. But with humans her type always say, “Oh humans are different from all of these other animals.” Which shows that she doesn’t understand humans, nor the fact that we are just another type of animal with some learned behavior, but if you try to raise a boy as a girl (which various groups have attempted) the boy will start having the dolls fight and kill each other – you cannot repress testosterone! Of course, feminists conveniently do not document that – but it is well represented in multiple studies – so they start coming up with fantasy reasons to explain it, rather than simply accepting the facts.

I always say, “Women are EXACTLY as men want them to be, and MEN are exactly as women want them to be.” Since it is all about reproduction – and the ones that meet the criteria of the other, reproduce. So if you look at the women, they generally have children by an alpha and then want a beta to raise them. That would tend to suggest that “beta-ness” is a taught behavior – since beta-ness will die out otherwise. Of course, it is a new phenomena with women beating it into the heads of the more susceptible males. The alphas, just smile and enjoy life and the fruit that it provides to them.

With anything in psychology – you should be able to look at yourself and see hints of the same thing. These women just fight against it – and it makes women unhappy. In study after study women are more unhappy now then at any other time – the reason is simple. They are brain-washed to try to be men – and that makes them unhappy. The ones who embrace their femininity and accept their nature, are the ones who are happiest. That is why women seek out alpha males – we treat them the way they want to be treated. It keeps them happy – they don’t want a man who behaves like a woman. They want a man who behaves like a man – so they can complain about him. :)

Coming from someone who is actually part of a real scientific field, I hope most people here realize that evolutionary psychology is a pseudo-science with about much validity as a liberal arts degree in the engineering profession. The area makes a complete mockery of scientific thought and experimentation, and any argument that relies on it to support its premise should be given no more than a mere moment of mockery before being forgotten, that is until the writer can come up with a better way to prove his point rather than with the scientific equivalent of astrology.

To give you an idea of how weak this reasoning is, if you go and re-read the claims that the poster uses to support his argument you will (hopefully, if I am to have any hope for the human race remain) be able to see that all of them can be easily reworded or looked on from a different angle to support the exact same argument, thus making the initial central theme extracted from them quite invalid in the eyes of science, and therefore in the eyes of rational thought.

Your thesis is easy to prove wrong. If a woman has the same market value ingrained from the day she was born and nothing can change it, then why are movie stars more sought after than secretaries? Are you stating that a secretary with looks of 9 is more desirable than a big-time pop star with looks of 7?

The pop star didn’t become a star by birth. She practiced for years and made the right contacts to get where she is. Therefore, stating that women’s attractiveness is entirely set in stone is not a valid argument.

“[Hef and others like him are proof that old men with options will almost always choose younger (much younger, usually) women over “age appropriate” women.]”

Just a note: you do know that Hef pay’s for this women, right? They are on the dole. They get monthly allowances from him. He dates hookers. I’m not condemning it, but that’s the reality.

[Heartiste: I read that Hef started paying them when he reached the really old decrepit stage of his life. Anyhow, the point is that old men with compensating attractiveness traits can fuck younger women, and old women do not have this option. Hef isn’t the only example. Jack Nicholson bangs a lot of young babes and there’s no rumor of him paying for it.]

The line between what is hooking and what isn’t hooking is form over substance. Anyway, hookers are generally cheaper than wives per screw, so… Most wives net gain financially over husbands, and that’s not even to mention what they get out of divorce.

For what its worth, my ex, who was 33 at the time, was dying to sleep with Hef and urging me to take her to a party at the Mansion so she could try. Then again, she was hooker – though she wasn’t planning to charge him.

I’m confident Hef can go out any night of the week in L.A. wearing his robe and score a hot chick. He doesn’t even let other girls into his twice-weekly reverse gang bang because everyone is supposed to be tested; other girls can only watch.

Old women with compensating traits (i.e. money) are capable of getting younger men.

[Heartiste: No, I’m afraid not. The sexual market doesn’t work that way. Old women with all the money in the world are still ignored by almost all men, including by poor men who would conceivably need the money, and especially by men with options. The best an old woman with money can do is to hire a gigolo — i.e., gay male prostitute — to service her tumbleweed pussy once a year while he lives the high life on her dime and fucks boy toys when she’s away getting her wig fitted.]

Why do you think men are only “wired” to value beauty? More intelligent offspring are more likely to reproduce. Therefore, men should be “wired” to value intelligence in women. Right? I’m not sure why you think that many factors influence how a woman views a man, but beauty alone influences how a man views a woman.

No, men have the potential to double the planet’s population in a few cumshots. They get to be less choosy.

Let’s just say that they value health and beauty for short-term hookups, in order for the potential offspring to live. And they value the certainty of paternity + minimal beauty for long-term mating.

Women have precious lonely sporadic eggs, they have to choose the father carefully. When they’re ovulating, they go for the dark triad dominant (and why not handsome) men, who are more equipped to survive in the harsh reality behind this fancy dream which is civilization. And they reward nice guys with companionship and unfruitful sex during the rest of their menstrual cycle.

Madonna/whore. Lover/provider. Evolutionarily speaking, a man couldn’t care less if his son or daughter is intelligent. He’s just playing a game of odds.
Perhaps you’re the kind of guy who’s gonna respond with something like “But I want my son to be intelligent”. In which case, you would be snowflaking and in desperate need to read basic evolutionary psychology.
Or maybe your genes value intelligence in a potential female mate because your genes know that you’re lacking intelligence. Just sayin’.

This is the anon poster from two slots above. Let me spell this out for you more simply. All else equal, a more intelligent offspring is more likely to reproduce. Therefore, men prefer more intelligent women (b/c they produce smarter offspring). I’m talking about what’s more desired, not whether a woman is screw-able (which seems to be the mistake your making above). To re-iterate, men are attracted to things other than beauty, and this is consistent with evolutionary theory.

I will start by stating something everyone knows: education is negatively correlated with fecundity. I have been told that there are exceptions, but have never seen the data.

Intelligence, measured by IQ, is generally correlated with success in every field up to about the high 120s, which hilariously, is right about where the typical type I sociopath IQ sits. Mensa starts at 130. IQs of 135 and higher are linked to a significantly higher probability of alcoholism and depression, neither of which are good for game. Alcohol leads to breeding at random, not careful selection of traits, and being depressed kills your game in modern life.

“[Heartiste: I’m not abreast (heh) of these comment threads, but I believe you were the one who wrote that this blog has claimed that a woman’s personality doesn’t matter AT ALL to her mating prospects. That “AT ALL” is the strawman you are then effortlessly knocking down.
No one of this blog ever claimed that. Proof is right at the top of the home page. The DMV test for women has a section devoted to feminine personality that will add or subtract a minor amount from a woman’s ability to keep men around whom she has initially attracted with her beauty.
Nonetheless, the main point — that women’s personality is not very important to her short term mating success but becomes more important to her long term mating success — stands
(And by long term mating success, I mean a woman’s ability to get a man to fall in love with her and want to commit to her.)]”

What you say is true, but its ultimately a moot point. Feminine personality traits are correlated with female beauty, so beautiful women actually also tend to have better personalities, barring some sort of abuse in their background.

You had me until you said that evolutionary psychology as a hard science was irrelevant to the discussion so long as what it says makes sense.

Because feminists are arguing that it doesn’t make sense. Therefore the burden of proof falls on you to establish both the tenets of evolutionary psychology and how reliable and valid those results are.

[Heartiste: No, the burden of proof is on feminists to explain how their worldview, which makes considerably less sense than EP, is the correct one. EP scientists have already made their case, and it makes more sense as an explanation for what those with the eyes to see can observe all around them.]

Well, I’m not a huge fan of evo-psych from the policy perspective, I have a few disconnects with it but the larger issue here are the failures of feminism.

I tried to penetrate this said “echo chamber” but I was not permitted into their precious lair of fellow ladies. I offered a few simple challenges to their logic and little hamster spins but was quickly told to eff off. Apparently, they already knew my anti-feminist stance. To which I said, but I’m a woman, wouldn’t like you like me around? Nope.

So uh, something fun about the feminism and cultural studies and other garbage you mentioned:

Anyone who has ever taken a high-school algebra test knows that it is, at times, possible to get to the right answer, using wrong methods. This truth can also be expressed as ‘a broken clock is still right twice a day’.

Feminism, Freudian psychology, phrenology, and plenty of other explanations for human psychology are like this, they can occasionally produce explanations for the natural world, but it is only evolutionary psychology which consistently produces the correct answers over and over.

In physics, it is understood that once you can make predictions about a phenomena, you can begin to engineer it. The study of game is to evolutionary psychology as engineering is to physics.